Friday, 27 April 2012

In a hard-hitting
investigative exposé, Andrew Robertson examines the network of vested interests
that runs between Parliament and the private healthcare industry. This cosy,
toxic relationship, he warns, threatens not only the future of the NHS but that
of democracy in the UK. This article appeared in Ceasefire magazine.

As the Lords and
Baronesses of the UK’s parliamentary chamber debated the government’s Health
and Social Care bill, it was revealed by the Daily Mirror that 40 of these
Peers had financial interests in companies involved in private healthcare. This
number, though shocking, was just the tip of the iceberg. Further research
revealed the true extent of the financial interests the unelected Peers of the
House of Lords had in passing the Health and Social Care bill.

Carrying the
Mirror’s research further, we at Social Investigations, went
through the Lords’ register of interests with a fine tooth comb. In total, an
extraordinary142 Peers were found to have financial interests in companies
involved in private healthcare. These interests are, however, not the exclusive
domain of a single party, but highlight self-interest that is endemic within every
major party of every political persuasion, raising the question: Who are they
actually serving?

In total 1 in 4
Conservative Peers were found to have these vested interests. The Labour Party
had a total of 1 in 6, a number equalled by the Crossbench Peers, and the
Liberal Democrat Peers, the coalition’s willing partners in passing the bill,
had a total of 1 in 10 with such interests.

So what of these
connections?

The mixture of
the Peers’ financial interest and involvement varies. Some MPs have shares in
healthcare companies set to benefit from the bill’s passing. Some are chairmen,
partners, consultants, or are acting as senior advisers to investment groups
funding the private companies, such as private equity firms, ready to swoop.

These interests,
although indicative of where their priorities lie, would be less influential if
the Peers were prevented from voting when they have a conflict of interest. At
local government level, such conflicts come under a ruling of ‘prejudicial
interest’, which requires the councillor to leave the room and take no further
part in discussions or voting. No such safeguard exists in the House of Lords.

The subject of
voting with conflicts of interest was put to the Peers after Social
Investigations emailed all 142 with financial interests.

The email stated:

‘It is obvious
that with these vested interests there is a conflict of interest and many who
have seen this list are quite frankly shocked that this situation exists
whereby those with vested interests can and are voting in favour of policies
which could benefit those interests through the promotion of the further
privatisation of the NHS.’

The response was
notable in its silence, except for a single reply from Liberal Democrat Peer
Baroness Barker, who ignored the issue of interests and simply stated:

‘Please supply
your evidence that any of the people named below…have failed to declare their
interests as they are required to do. Please supply your evidence that the
individuals named below have furthered their own interests. Please supply as
much detail as you have.’

Apparently a list
of 142 Peers who have financial connections to private healthcare companies and
are taking part in a bill that will hand more opportunities to private
healthcare is not ‘evidence’ enough; but of course, by evidence, she means
evidence that the Peers are not abiding by the existing rules, which simply
require them to declare their interests, but do not prevent them from voting on
issues that may directly benefit those interests. There is as of now no mention
of preventing these conflicts of interest in the House of Lords reforms
currently being put forward by the Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg.

Lord Popat

Take Lord Popat,
a nursing and care home tycoon who has given the Conservatives a total of £319,641.
The Ugandan-born dad-of-three has amassed an estimated £42million fortune as
founder and chief of TLC Group, which provides services for the elderly. Prime
Minister Cameron made the businessman a Peer shortly after entering No10 in May
2010. Lord Popat’s donations include a £25,000 gift registered a week after the
Conservatives health reforms were unveiled in July last year.

This blatant
money for power behaviour is matched by the actions of another Conservative
Peer Lord Chadlington, who has been in the House of Lords since 1996. Lord
Chadlington is the founder and chairman of a PR and communications company
called Huntsworth plc. One arm of the group is Huntsworth Health, which
operates globally, and here in the UK. Its website states that the company ‘provides
a full continuum of consulting and communications services to the healthcare
and well-being industry.’

In the same month
as the white paper was released, Huntsworth Health acquired healthcare
communications agency, ScopeMedical for £4.6m, thus expanding its health
division. Lord Chadlington said of the takeover: “We are delighted to announce
the acquisition…Healthcare is a major growth area and we are now very well
positioned to take advantage of that growth.’

Not only do they
have Lord Chadlington as their CEO, but up until last year, they also had
Labour Peer Lord Puttnam as a Director, and from 2001-03 Conservative Peer
Baroness Cumberlege was one of their non-executive directors. If that’s not
enough, they have some finance provided via Liberal Democrat Lord Alliance, who
has shares in the company, making four Lords, from three main parties, working
for one company.

Huntsworth plc
gave £15,500 to the Conservative party in August last year and has given money
every year since 2008. Lord Chadlington and his wife have personally given more
than £20,000 to the local party since 2007, including a sum of £10,000 for his
leadership campaign. All within the rules that make it almost impossible to
prove their actions will exclusively benefit his company. This ‘exclusivity’
part of the rules, is an important word, as found out when a complaint was put
to the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards about Lord Chadlington, his
company and its connections to the government and their Health and Social Care
bill.

The response
stated: ‘You have not supplied any evidence to suggest that any of Lord
Chadlington’s votes in connection with this Bill, were designed to confer
exclusive benefit on, as you suggest, Huntsworth plc.’

Why do so many
companies ask Lords to sit on their boards, become chairman and advisors if it
isn’t to access the highest levels of government and acquire an exclusive
benefit?

However, private
companies don’t just rely on a vote to get want they want; they want to be
where the centre for information is too. The Associate Parliamentary Health
Group (APHG), which was launched in November 2001 was set up with the intention
to provide: ‘information with balance and impartiality on local as well as
national matters, and is recognised as one of the preferred sources of
information on health in Parliament.’

Four key members
of the APHG have financial links to companies involved in private healthcare.
The Chair of the APGH is Baroness Cumberlege, who runs a company called
Cumberlege Connections. Her company is involved in running training programmes
for medical staff, but also covers the topic of ‘Politics, Power
and Persuasion’, in a tailored two-day
programme which includes topics such as: ‘Managing the markets,
the challenges of commissioning’, ‘who’s who’, and ‘brokering deals with other
independent sector providers’; the latter programme is delivered by the
Baroness herself.

In 2009,
following a complaint from transparency campaigners Spinwatch, the Baroness was
forced to admit that she had run her business from the House of Lords until it “took
off”, and failed to declare her company’s interests in any debates. The
disciplinary action involved nothing more than having to make an apology.

One of the key
areas of the Health and Social Care bill involves handing over the purchasing
power for services from Primary Care Trusts (PCTs), who were previously in
charge of this, to local Commissioning Groups led by Doctors. In order to get
these new Groups into a position where they can carry out the complicated
duties of commissioning, a collection of ‘Approved Providers’ were formed to be
part of a national framework from which the GP groups had to choose from. It is
here that private business has already been making money from the reforms. The
partnerships are largely made up of private companies, who bid for contracts to
develop the new GP groups. Baroness Cumberlege placed her company into one of
these Alliances led by management consultancy company PricewaterhouseCoopers,
who were bidding for and winning contracts as she debated and voted on the
bill, helping it pass into Act.

Another member of
the APHG Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, acts as the groups’ treasurer and has
received payment from Baroness Cumberlege for work as a trainer and consultant.
His input makes up one of five Peers and four MPs who have worked
for her company. Lord Harris of Haringey who is listed as an APHG advisor, has
also been remunerated by Cumberlege Connections for ‘occasional participation
in training events.’ In addition, he is a senior adviser to business services
giant KPMG, who are one of the ‘approved providers’, winning contracts for the
new commissioning
groups.

Mark Britnell,
head of global finance giant KPMG’s health division and an advisor to Prime
Minister David Cameron had announced in a healthcare industry conference in
2010 that the NHS would be shown ‘No mercy.’ Adding: “…and the best time to
take advantage of this will be in the next couple of years.” A rather harsh
choice of words for someone who was employed by the NHS for over a decade.

Finally,
Conservative MP Mark Simmonds, who acts as Co-chair to Baroness Cumberlege on
the parliamentary group, is paid £50,000 a year for 10 hours a month as a
strategic advisor to Circle Health, the first firm to win control of an NHS
hospital. The former shadow minister for health recently had to apologise to
the House of Commons, for ‘inadvertently’
failing to declare his interest when talking in favour of the NHS reforms.
Circle has connections to Health Secretary and the architect of the Health and
Social care bill, Andrew Lansley. Christina Lineen spent two years as an aide
to Mr Lansley prior to moving to Circle as head of communications.

In addition to
the leading roles played by these parliamentarian’s, the APGH has a list of
external associate members, all private health companies, who attend occasional
meetings with the Group. The list, which currently sits at twenty-three
members, must pay a subscription fee to be involved. The amount of members
allowed is capped at 26 and they become a member on a first come, first serve
basis, which according to the manger of the parliamentary group Ella Jackson,
is the fairest and ‘most transparent’ way to operate the membership system.
That however, is where the transparency ends.

The rules of
All-Party Groups demands a record be held of all meetings, and that each Group
must keep sufficient records to enable it to prove that the group meets at
least twice a year. The APGH according to their manager goes further than this,
by ‘audio-recording’ every meeting it holds. The problem is, we the public aren’t
allowed to hear these recordings, because the meetings are held under something
called ‘Chatham House Rules’.

The Chatham House
rule, which doesn’t have to be held in Chatham House to apply, was created back
in 1927 and has since been refined in 1992 and 2002, and exists according to
the Chatham House website;
‘to allow people to speak as individuals, and to express views that may not be
those of their organisations.’ It adds: ‘People usually feel more relaxed if
they don’t have to worry about their reputation or the implications if they are
publicly quoted.’ This lack of transparency applies to the list of attendees
too, where it is forbidden to mention who attended.

In amongst the
list of companies paying their subscription are: Alliance boots, Astrazeneca,
and GlaxoSmithKline; who all have Lords and or MPs with financial links to
their company. Pharmaceutical giant Astrazeneca has 9 Lords who are financially
linked to them, including some who hold shares. GlaxoSmithKline has 17 Lords
with shares in its company and Alliance Boots can boast having Lord Blyth as
one of its former chairman, and former MP Patricia Hewitt, who took a
consultancy job with them 7 months after standing down as an MP.

Ms Jackson of
APGH explained: ‘It’s vital that parliamentarians and other speakers are able
to speak freely in an open and frank exchange, without fear of having their
thoughts reported out of context.’ What could both Peers and MPs with private
healthcare interests and private healthcare companies be talking about that
requires such secrecy? Why invoke a rule created over 80-years ago that
prevents members of the public knowing who was in attendance and what was said?

The Health and
Social care bill is now an Act; the companies who have lobbied for the NHS to
be privatised have taken one giant leap into its eventual dismantling. The
openness, with which money is given to politicians through donations,
highlights an assumption that such behaviour is acceptable. Baroness Barker’s
response doesn’t question that 142 Lords having financial connections to
private healthcare as a problem; but merely points out the technical rules have
been followed.

Our politicians
sit on the boards, they own the companies, they are the directors, and they are
indefinable from one another. The Labour party has promised to repeal the bill,
but as election time comes, will those Labour Lords and MPs with interests in private
healthcare, work behind the scenes to water down any changes? What of the
future? So long as Lords and MPs are allowed to vote on bills that are directly
linked to companies they have a financial interest in, then they will always be
open to representing the corporations for whom they work. They are meant to be
public servants, yet the evidence points towards them serving another element
of society, one that is hidden behind corporate confidentially and ‘Chatham
House’ rules.

Our democracy is
under threat and our parliamentarians are all in this together, and at the very
least should be barred from voting when a prejudicial conflict of interest
appears. Until then, such behaviour will continue and unelected corporations
will continue to hold the reins of power.

Thursday, 26 April 2012

I am writing in relation to the BBC coverage of the NHS Health and Social Care bill, that has now become an Act.

As an organisation that has huge resources, I am curious to know whether you had thought to invest time and money into uncovering some of the vested interests of our parliamentarians in private health care?

As the Lords were sitting in the chamber debating the bill, I was unearthing and putting out the list of Lords and MPs who have these interests. The list went viral and although I accept you may personally have not seen the list, I am slightly aghast that the BBC didn't pick up on it, or think to make this connection yourselves.

The research found 142 Peers having financial connections to companies involved in private healthcare. The Conservative Lords have 1 in 4 with these conflicts of interest. Even now, despite the bill becoming an Act, this list represents a threat to our democracy and I alongside tens of thousands of others who have passed this around on twitter feel it must get some coverage. This list is not something of the past, but represents the present, and gives a glaring idea of why this bill was produced.

Furthermore, why, when Andrew Lansley has been outed as having been bankrolled by the chairman of CareUK, was this not raised with him whenever he spoke of the bill? Surely every reasoning he gave as a justification for the bill should be linked to his healthcare financial supporters. The coalition are littered with these connections, yet from the interviews and coverage the BBC has given, you would never guess this was the case.

Is it not a dereliction of journalistic duty to allow Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary and author of the Health and Social Care bill, to repeat his various reasonings for the bill without constantly challenging him and his party's connections to the private healthcare industry?

Finally, i would be grateful if you could tell me if you think the matter of the Lords financial interests in Private Healthcare is now in your thoughts, and whether you will intend to highlight this in a future news item?

Tuesday, 24 April 2012

As the Health and Social Care bill was being debated in the House of
Lords, Beachcroft an
international law firm heavily involved in healthcare positioned itself into an
alliance led by Capita, which was making money from developing the new Clinical
Commissioning groups (CCGs).

Beachcroft like so
many companies involved in healthcare has a Lord in a senior position. Lord
Hunt of Wirral was a senior partner at Beachcroft Wansboroughs now DAC Beachcroft
from 1996 until 2005, whereupon he became chairman of the firm’s financial
services division.

When speaking in a
House of Lords debate on health in October 2010, he said: ‘Many of the Government's commitments
will require primary legislation, and a Bill is due to be introduced later this
year which will attract considerable attention not only from within the NHS but
from firms in the private health sector and from professional advisers.’

Seven months before
the Conservative Peer made that statement, and five months before the
government publically released their White Paper: Equity
and excellence: Liberating the NHS: Beachcroft were busy strengthening their healthcare team. In an article
appearing in the lawyer, it revealed how Beachcroft were raiding a ‘10-strong team of lawyers from Halliwells’
healthcare practice.’ Head of healthcare Nigel Montgomery told the lawyer: “It
[healthcare] is absolutely a growth area and has grown substantially over the
last three years,”

Further depth to
their healthcare team was made following the appointment of partner Eve
Gregory, from legal giant Eversheds, a firm that had already lost a five-strong health team in the health sector to
Beachcroft in 2008.

Beachcroft’s
influence cannot be overstated, with the law firm having
over 300 health clients; Beachcroft is one of the largest commercial law firms
in the UK and is widely regarded as the leading legal adviser to the health and
social care sector. In July this year, Peter
Lee, former Partner and
now consultant at Beachcroft, was appointed Chairman of The Rotherham NHS
Foundation Trust. In the same month, the NHS
Commercial Alliance, a new procurement partnership set up in 2010,
selected 11 law firms in one of the largest legal services framework agreements
in the country, valued at £20m for up to four years. The framework
agreement, which was awarded last month, covers eight lots, and
Beachcroft are represented in every one of them.

Lord Hunt is not the
only parliament representative they’ve had; Charles Clarke – the former Labour MP for Norwich
South was once listed as a consultant to Beachcroft LLP. The MP was roundly
condemned by those on the left of the party for his statement suggesting people
should be charged for 'peripheral treatments'.

Beachcroft who have
just launched a new updated
guide for Clinical Commissioning Groups at the beginning of April, are
all set to make money from the continued CCG development process. Capita who
have won multiple contracts to develop the new CCGs, are leading the way,
sponsoring the Clinical Commissioning conference titled: ‘‘Defining Our
Future’, taking place today (24th April) in London.

Perhaps it goes
without saying, but say it I will, Lord Hunt of Wirral was able to vote on the
Health and Social care bill, and vote he did; loyally
with the government in all key divisions. His connection to a company involved
in private healthcare makes him one of the 27% of Conservative Lords with such
interests.

Did Lord Hunt give
inside knowledge of the upcoming changes to Beachcroft? The answer is we don’t
know, and Beachcroft can surely stand on their own two feet. What is certain
however, is Lord Hunt of Wirral should not be allowed to vote on a bill with
this conflict of interest. Our democracy is broken and the corporations are
running the show.

If the story sounds
familiar, it’s because another Tory Peer Baroness Cumberlege who runs a
training and consultancy company called Cumberlege Connections, had also moved
her company into an alliance led by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which is winning
contracts to develop the new CCGs; the story is told here.

Thursday, 19 April 2012

A national conference for CCG leaders to air their ‘concerns’
over the implementation of clinical commissioning, is littered with companies
who have financial links to Lords and MPs. The event, which is titled ‘Defining
Our Future’, is sponsored by Capita, a private company winning
contracts for developing the CCGs.

Capita partner Beachcroft, is one of the largest
commercial law firms in the UK and is widely regarded as the leading legal
adviser to the health and social care sector.To their advantage, they have Lord Hunt of Wirral as a
partner. In October 2008 when speaking in a healthcare debate in the Lords, the Peer stated: “A Bill is due to be introduced later this year
which will attract considerable attention not only from within the NHS but from
firms in the private health sector and from professional advisers.”

Lord Hunt is not alone in being involved in a company that has moved into a
position where it can make money from the reforms; in which he voted; which he did in all the key areas of the debate as it passed through the House. Baroness
Cumberlege positioned her company Cumberlege Connections, into an alliance led by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) as
she debated the merits of the bill in the House. The story of her involvement is well
covered here.

Included in Beachcroft’s
connections to power, is former Labour MP for Norwich South Charles Clarke, who
was listed in the 2008 register of interests as a consultant to commercial firm
Beachcroft LLP. When Mr Clarke was a sitting MP, he promoted the idea that the
NHS should charge for 'peripheral treatments'. In 2008, he was also registered as a consultant to
KPMG LLP, on the 'future of public service reform.' KPMG are heavily
involved in implementing changes in the NHS and its commissioning groups.

Companiesin the KPMG partnership with links to parliamentarians are UK law firm Morgan Cole,
who have Conservative MEP Ashley Fox as their connection, who was an Associate to the company until
2009 when he was elected to the European Parliament. In addition, I.T. company McKessonInformation Solutions
Ltd, have Lord Carter as their chairman. The Labour Peer is also the chairman of the NHS
Co-operation and Competition Panel (CCP), a conflict
of interest, which in a statement made by McKesson to the Guardian is
avoided because he: "steps down from any investigation where there is
potential conflict of interest.”

So that’s alright then.

The list of companies in partnerships winning contracts to
develop CCGs and having connections to Lords and MPs doesn’t end there. In
2008, Conservative MP for Bexhill and Battle Gregory Baker, had shares in Penna
plc, who deliver HR services to the NHS and are in the Capita partnership. PricewaterhouseCoopers (Pwc) donated more than £100,000 worth of professional
advice to some of the Conservative Party's most senior politicians in the first
quarter of the year. A total of £102,950 was donated in non-cash gifts, however it isn’t just the
Conservatives. PwChave also donated in the form of research assistants
to Ed Balls, John Denham, Caroline Flint, Chuka Umanna as part of their
continual involvement in influencing government policy no matter who gets into
power.

Lord Darzi, a former
surgeon drafted into government as a health minister by Gordon Brown when he
was PM, is now an adviser to medical technology firm GE Healthcare, another ‘Approved
Provider.' When speaking at a stage of the Health and Social
Care bill when a proposal was put forward to prevent the reading of the bill going any further, he said: ‘he would find it 'difficult at this stage' to vote for
blocking the Bill...'I am speaking as a surgeon, not a politician.'

McKinsey also involved in the CCG creations , and who have been accused
of being a shadow
government in an article written
by George Monbiot, gave £10,000
to David Milliband for a speech made at a Global Business Leaders Summit in
February last year. The former foreign secretary also received a sum of £10,044
from the same company for travel expenses and accommodation for a meeting in
Singapore in March 2011. In addition
to this, Conservative Peer Lord Blackwell, was a partner with McKinsey
and Company between 1978 and 1994.

The links to Lords and MPs in this conference, highlights once more the driving force of private companies in the changing state of the NHS.

Monday, 16 April 2012

MPs
have distanced themselves from the Christian charity CARE following a
homophobic poster that suggested people who are gay, can be changed. Boris Johnson
pulled the adverts, which read ‘Not gay! Ex-gay, Post-Gay And Proud. Get Over
It!’ Now, following a campaign, MPs are distancing themselves from the views of
the charity, with two MPs promising not to take any interns from the charity
again. Catherine McKinnell, and Sharon Hodgson both confirmed they would not
take interns from CARE in the future.

Some
of the MPs listed below voted against for sexual equality in the Equality Act
(Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, including Tim Farron of the Liberal
Democrats and Andrew Sealous of the Conservatives.

Perhaps
people’s religious beliefs need to be declared on certain subjects that are
potentially affected by a person’s religious belief such as sexual orientation
or abortion. Well, that’s one for debate?

The list below is of the MPs who have taken on an
intern provided by CARE since 2008 up until the latest register of Interests.

Alistair Burt:
Conservative: Provision of an intern by CARE (Christian Action, Research and
Education). (Registered 6 February 2008)

Stephen Crabb: Conservative: Provided with an intern by CARE (Christian
Action, Research and Education). (2008 register of interests)

John
Glen: Conservative: Four days a week voluntary service from October
2011 to July 2012 provided by a volunteer intern who is self-funding except for
the receipt of a bursary of£5,500 as a member of the
educational leadership programme at the Christian Charity CARE.

Andrew Sealous: Conservative: Provision of an intern by CARE (Christian Action
Research and Education). (Registered 7 October 2008)

Caroline Spelman: Conservative: The
bursary of my Research Assistant is met by Christian Action, Research and Education
(CARE).

Gary Streeter:
Conservative: Intern provided by CARE (Christian Action Research and Education)
from October 2008- July 2009. (Registered 13 October 2008)

Steve Webb: Conservative: Intern
provided by Christian charity, CARE.

Paul Burstow: Lib Dem: Since September 2004 I have been provided with an intern
sponsored by CARE (Christian Action, Research and Education). (2008 register of
interests)

Tim
Farron: Lib Dem: Four days a week voluntary service from October 2011 to July
2012 from a volunteer intern who is self funding except for the receipt of a
bursary as a member of the educational leadership programme at the Christian
charity CARE. voted against Equality Act
Sexual Orientation Reg. 2007.

David Drew:
Labour: Provided with an intern sponsored by CARE (Christian Action, Research
and Education). (2008 register of interests)

Sharon Hodgson:
Labour: Four days a week voluntary service from October 2011 to July 2012
provided by a Volunteer Intern who is self-funding except for the receipt of a
bursary of £5,500 as a member of the educational Leadership Programme at the
Christian Charity CARE.

Elizabeth
Kendall: Labor: Four days a week voluntary service from 6 December 2011 to 23
February 2012 provided by a volunteer intern who is self funding except for the
receipt of a bursary of £5,500 as a member of the educational leadership
programme at the charity CARE.

Catherine
McKinnell: Labour: Four days a week voluntary service from 10 October 2011 to
19 July 2012 provided by a volunteer intern who is self- funding except for the
receipt of a bursary of £5,500 as a member of the educational leadership
programme at the charity CARE.

Andrew Reed:
Labour: Hadthe services for four days a week of an intern
sponsored by CARE (Christian Action, Research and Education). (2008 register of
interests)

For full list of MPs who have declared support for CARE since 2007 see here.

Tuesday, 10 April 2012

The Associate Parliamentary
Health Group (APHG) was launched in November 2001 and according to its website
was set up with the intention to provide: ‘information with balance and
impartiality, on local as well as national matters, and is recognised as one of
the preferred sources of information on health in Parliament.’

However research
conducted by Social Investigations has thrown the self-proclaimed ‘impartiality’
into question as it has been revealed three of the key parliamentary officers involved
in the group, have financial links to companies involved in private healthcare.

The Chair of the APGH is
Baroness Cumberlege, who has been exposed on this blog as having placed her
company into a position where it can make money out of the development of the
new GP Commissioning groups. The Alliance
the Baroness’s company joined, is led by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which has
sealed several contracts involved in the development of the new GP led groups. Her company is involved in running training programmes, but also covers the topic of ‘Politics, Power
and Persuasion’, in a tailored two-day
programme which includes topics such as: ‘Managing the markets,
the challenges of commissioning’, ‘who’s who’, and ‘brokering deals with other
independent sector providers’. The last programme is delivered by the Baroness
herself.

Next up is Lord Hunt of Kings Heath who acts as the groups’ treasurer and has received payment from Baroness Cumberlege for work as a
trainer and consultant, making up one of five
Peers and four MPs who have worked
for her company. Lord Harris of Haringey who is
listed as an APHG advisor, has also been remunerated by Cumberlege Connections
for ‘occasional participation in training events.’ In addition, he is a senior
adviser to business services giant KPMG, who are one of the ‘approved
providers’, winning contracts for the new commissioning groups.

Last but by no means
least is Mark Simmonds, who acts as Co-chair to Baroness Cumberlege on the
parliamentary group. The Conservative MP for Boston and Skegness is paid
£50,000 a year for 10 hours a month as a strategic advisor to Circle Health, the first firm to win control of an NHS hospital. The
former shadow minister for health recently had to apologise to the House of
Commons, for ‘inadvertently’
failing to declare his interest when talking in favour of the NHS reforms.
Circle have connections to our ‘’person of the year’’ Andrew Lansley having recruited
a former aide to the health secretary as head of communications. Christina
Lineen spent two years working for Lansley prior to moving to Circle.

In addition to the parliamentarian’s
interests in such an important and supposedly independent organisation, the
APGH has a list of external Associate members from the private healthcare
world.

The amount of members is
capped at 26 and they pay an annual subscription fee to be part of the health
group on a first come, first serve basis. This according to the manger of the parliamentary group Ella Jackson, being the fairest and 'most transparent' way to operate the group's membership system.' That however, is where the transparency ends. I asked Ela Jackson whether the group keeps minutes?

Here's what she said: 'The APHG holds
records of all its meetings in strict accordance with the Rules on All-Party
Groups. In fact, the APHG goes further than that. Official rules dictate that
each All-Party Group must keep sufficient records to enable it to prove that
the group meets at least twice a year, whereas the APHG ensures that it
audio-records every meeting it holds.

However, because
meetings are held under Chatham House Rules the group does not produce written
minutes.'

The Chatham House
rule was created back in 1927 and has since been refined
in 1992 and 2002, and exists according to the Chatham House website; ‘to
allow people to speak as individuals, and to express views that may not be
those of their organisations, and therefore it encourages free discussion.’ It
continues: ‘People usually feel more relaxed if they don't have to worry about
their reputation or the implications if they are publicly quoted.’

This lack of transparency
applies to the list of attendees too, where it is forbidden to mention who attended.

Ms Jackson explained: 'It’s vital that parliamentarians and other speakers are able to speak
freely in an open and frank exchange, without fear of having their thoughts
reported out of context.'

In amongst the list of companies involved in the group are: Alliance boots, BT,
Astrazeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer; who are all heavily linked to the
Lords, and in some cases MPs.

Astrazeneca has 9 Lords with
financial links to its company. GlaxoSmithKline has 17 Lords with shares in its
company and Alliance Boots has a former chairman in Lord Blyth, and former MP Patricia
Hewitt took a consultancy job with them 7 months after standing down as an MP.

So here we are
again, another government policy group, which is immersed in connections to
private healthcare, and whose discussions are held in private. The Lords and MPs largely appear to be representing
corporations more so than the public. It is time for change.

Friday, 6 April 2012

A complaint made to the House of
Lords Commissioner for Standards on a Conservative Lord who failed to declare his interests
has been upheld.

In March this year, Social
Investigations posted how Lord Hamilton appeared to have broken the rules by
not mentioning his interests as a director of managing consultancy company, MSB
Ltd. The company came to the attention of this blog, when it was found to be earning
money from a private health care company serving the NHS.

The complaint filed by a member
of the public Robert Wylie, focused on a statement made by the Lord on 13th February 2012.

'My Lords, surely
one of the problems of the National Health Service is the wall of money that
was thrown at a totally unreformed NHS by the last Government? Do we not need
management consultants now to show us the way forward on the savings that need
to be wrung out of the NHS so that it can survive into the future?'

Although Lord
Hamilton had registered his interests in MSB Ltd, any Peer must announce their
interest before speaking in a session.

Lord Hamilton who is one of 141 Peers exposed as having financial links to companies involved in private healthcare, apologised for the ‘oversight’: ‘Mr Wyllie is correct in
alleging that I contributed to the Private Notice Question on the NHS and
management consultants without admitting that I was a director of MSB. I
apologise for this oversight.’

An apology, is apparently enough when you are a Lord.

Paul Kernaghan
the Standards Commissioner, replied to the Peer saying: ‘I am satisfied that the complaint whilst justified, highlights an
oversight which you readily acknowledged. Thus, I feel it is appropriate that I
propose the following course of action. I suggest that you write a letter
addressed to Baroness Manningham-Buller (Chairman, Sub- Committee on Lords' Conduct)
but forwarded via my office. That letter should, in essence, repeat the core
facts contained in your letter of 21 February 2012.’ He continued: ‘Namely,
that you accept the complaint was justified, you should have made a declaration
and you apologise for not declaring your directorship. I am of the view that
such a letter setting the record straight, is all that is required in this
instance.’

So an apology is
enough. Lord Hamilton blatantly promotes an element of NHS reform in which he
is a director of a company involved in the same line of work. Even though he
was forced to make an apology, he initially told the Standards Commissioner in
a letter on the 21st February: ‘Years
ago MSB pitched for work with the NHS but I do not think that they have fulfilled
a contract during the ten or so years that I have been a director.’

Wrong. In a follow up letter to the Commissioner three days later. He announced: ‘I have checked with MSB
as the last time they indirectly worked for the NHS was as a sub- contractor to
CARE-UK doing patient research. The contract ended in the first quarter of 2009
after 2 years.’

So as a director of
MSB Ltd, he didn’t know they had a contract with a private healthcare company
Care UK, whose director incidentally funded health Secretary Andrew Lansley’s
office. He also forgot to mention his registered interests, but what he didn’t
forget to do, was vote loyally on every division in the Health and Social Care
bill, as it passed into Act.

An apology is not
enough. The Lords is an open house for companies disguised as Lords, who have
passed our health service into the hands of the corporations to which they are paid
to serve.

Sign the petition
to Change the House of Lords rules to
stop Lords voting on bills where they have financial conflicts of interest.

Thursday, 5 April 2012

I would like to ask you a couple
of questions regarding a conflict of interest you appear to have.

I note in your registered
interests you have shares in a company called Huntsworth plc run by Lord
Chadlington.

Do you not think that having
shares in a company run by a Conservative, who funded David Cameron's
leadership campaign, and a company which gave £15,500 to the party in August
last year, and has given money every year since 2008, crosses the boundaries of
the coalition somewhat?

Furthermore, one company in the
group that make up Huntsworth Health plc, and which you have shares in has
involvement in private healthcare. Huntsworth Health's website states how the
company ‘provides a full continuum of consulting and communications services to
the healthcare and well-being industry.’

I consider this is a conflict of
interest?

Also can you tell me if the vote
you made rejecting Lord Rea's proposal to decline 'to give the bill a second
reading' was influenced in any way by your shares in the company?

Finally, would you agree that
such conflicts of interests could be avoided if Peers were not allowed to vote
when such conflicts arise, as in this case? At local level councillors cannot
vote with a prejudicial interest, Do you think this should apply to Lords?

I appreciate your taking the
time to read this and would like to hear from you on this matter when you are
able?

Wednesday, 4 April 2012

Baroness
Cumberlege, one of the 141 peers exposed as having financial links to companies
involved in private healthcare put her company into a position whereby it could
make money from the reforms as she debated them in the House of Lords.

The former health
secretary-turned-peer set up an organisation called Cumberlege Connections, which runs training programmes
across the NHS spectrum for consultants, GPs, NHS managers, Directors and chief
executives. In addition to this service, part of their training programme
covers ‘Politics, Power and Persuasion’, a
tailored two-day
programme which includes topics such as: ‘Managing the markets, the
challenges of commissioning’, ‘who’s who’, and ‘brokering deals with other
independent sector providers’. The last programme is delivered by the Baroness
herself.

These are useful services, which enabled her company to become a partner in the
PwC Alliance, set up to bid for contracts to develop the new Clinical
Commissioning Groups.

One of elements of
the bill is the transition of commissioning responsibilities from Primary Care
Trusts to local Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), which could eventually
lead to these groups being in charge of the £65
billion NHS funding.

The transition
process has already begun in earnest, with some CCGs already in existence. It
is here where the private sector have already been making money out of changes,
even before the bill became law, which was on the 27th
of March 2012.

In order to get GP
groups into a position whereby they can commission properly, a national
framework needed to be followed.

Lot 1 -
Setting up and leading a high performing Clinical Commissioning Group,

Lot 2 -
Working collaboratively and across boundaries – promoting partnership working

Lot 3 -
Managing and influencing local and national politics

Lot 4 –
Engaging and leading colleagues in primary care through distributed
leadership - ensuring that the organisation is clinically led

When any CCG wants assistance
in any of the above categories, they must invite all the companies listed under
each ‘Lot’ category to make a bid. PwC Alliance, of which Baroness Cumberlege’s
company is a part, is listed in all four groups. Some of the other companies
involved include: McKinsey & Co, Deloitte and Capita, and KPMG partnership,
all financially benefitting from the restructuring of the NHS.

In
short, Baroness Cumberlege and her company are in a position to make money from
a bill in which she has voted in favour. This she certainly did, voting
loyally with the coalition on every division on the Health and Social
Care bill.

So what sort of money is being made? Well, according to Chair of the Royal
College of GPs, Dr Clare Gerada, quite a lot. She told the leading General
Practice magazine Pulse:
'Most
of the resources for commissioning development went into the coffers of big
private consultancies such as KPMG. In London alone £7 million of funding has
gone into those companies.' The
highest-earning firms were: PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) (£1.61m), KPMG
(£1.47m) and McKinsey & Co (£1.27m).

So
is the Baroness making money out of the restructuring? It would appear so. In
an updated report released in January this year, NHS Barnet announced
that the NHS Harrow Clinical Commissioning board had chosen PWC Alliance for
their organisational development. Minutes
of a meeting held by the Lincolnshire GP commissioning Executive Committee
confirms the Lincolnshire South-West Executive Team
had met with PwC Alliance regarding the ‘future working and Governance’
arrangements for the CCG. A further contract for the PwC Alliance is revealed
in the minutes of the Havering Clinical Commissioning Committee’s Chairman’s
report, which involved the merger with the NHS outer North-East London cluster
and states the PwC Alliance had been commissioned to undertake ‘their
organisational baseline assessment,’ which was
presented to the joint shadow CCG. All of these taking place before the bill
had passed, and while Baroness Cumberlege was debating on the bill.

Even if her company hasn't received money for this yet, she has put her organisation in a position to do so.

The Baroness and
Cumberlege Connections made the headlines only two years ago, when, in 2009, the peer was
accused of misusing parliamentary facilities to promote her own business,
admitting that she had failed to declare her interest properly during House of
Lords’ debates. In addition, the Baroness faced other charges of using her
Lords email address to recruit people to commercial courses her firm was
organising. Cumberlege was forced to
admit that the business was run from the House of Lords until "it took
off". The complaint was made by lobbying
transparency campaigners Spinwatch,
who uncovered the case and made the complaint.

At the time, the
Guardian reported Spinwatch's
spokesman, David Miller, as saying: "No peer should be treating parliament
as an office from which to do commercial business…" The Baroness however maintained that her company is not a
lobbying company.

Despite being found guilty of breaking the
rules with regard to declaring her outside interests, Cumberlege did not face
any disciplinary action.

Her company is not
only connected to parliament, but it utilises a plethora of other peers in its
work. Aside from Baroness Cumberlege, there are five other peers who have
offered their services to her company, either as a trainer or a consultant. Baroness
Billingham, Lord Grocott, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Baroness Jay, and Lord
Harris of Haringey. Indeed Lord Harris, who works as an occasional trainer, is
also a senior advisor to KPMG, the lead body in one of the other partnerships
vying for contracts to develop the new CCGs.

In addition to the Lords,
Labour MP Rosie Cooper received payment of £300 for a focus group meeting with
health professionals on ‘understanding MPs.’ David Lammy (also Labour) has
received multiple payments throughout 2011 for participating in, amongst other
programmes, the ‘Westminster experience’ conference. Stuart Gisela received two
payments in 2011 for appearing in workshops, and Frank Dobson was paid £600 for
a 4 hour presentation.
However, it was not just the Peer’s ability to vote when such conflict of
interest is clear, but that she was able to influence the debate by speaking.
No wonder then she should say: ‘I applaud the flexibility of the bill’, and it
would appear the flexibility of the rules too.

-------------

For more on her
former employer and fellow peer Lord Chadlington’s PR and lobbying firm
Huntsworth plc. For more on Lord Chadlington, Huntsworth plc and their power of
influence see here.

Note: In addition, Cumberlege Connections was listed under another
partnership led by KPMG, until October 2011, where it appears she switched to
the PwC Alliance. On asking whether she was part of both alliances; John Lewin
a project manager of the NHS Leadership Acadamy confirmed to me ‘Cumberlege Connections are part of the PwC Alliance.’